Browsing by Author "Shea-Budgell, Melissa"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Guiding the Grey: The Implementation and Evaluation of a Journal Club amongst a Librarian and Clinical Practice Guideline Developers - a Cancer Care Case Study
    (TextRelease, 2014-03) Vaska, Marcus; Kostaras, Xanthoula; MacLeod, Emily; Meek, Elysa; Shea-Budgell, Melissa; Watson, Laurissa
    Introduction/Goal: As a research-intensive facility located within a cancer care environment, library services provided at the Holy Cross Site closely adhere to an embedded librarian mandate, one where the librarian “actively engages in activities, possesses extensive knowledge of the researcher’s work, and offers assistance above and beyond common library service expectations” (Strain, 2011). The Guideline Utilization Resource Unit (GURU) is composed of knowledge management specialists (KMS) and nurse facilitators (NF) who support multidisciplinary teams in developing, implementing, and evaluating provincial clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the diagnosis, staging, treatment and follow-up of cancer. These CPGs are evidence-based documents with consensus recommendations; they are freely available on a public website for access by practitioners and patients, and are a form of grey literature. Team members at GURU consult regularly with the librarian to ensure that the most accurate and comprehensive search strategy is used to develop CPGs. The goal of this paper is to describe the process of organizing and evaluating a journal club involving a unique collaboration between guideline developers and a librarian. Procedure: The journal club is comprised of three KMSs, two NFs, the GURU Manager and an embedded librarian. The group has been meeting once per month since April 2012. Each member takes turns selecting two articles related to CPG development or implementation, and is responsible for leading an informal discussion. To evaluate the usefulness of the journal club and the impact of grey literature on CPG development in Alberta, all members of the journal club (n=7) were interviewed in a focus group setting or a semi-structured interview. Transcripts of audio-recorded interviews will be qualitatively analyzed for repeated themes related to knowledge gained from, and perceived benefits of journal club meetings. Results: First, we hypothesize that monthly participation in the journal club will increase members’ knowledge of development, evaluation, and implementation of guidelines. Second, we believe that participants will have acquired a better understanding of the research process and how to critique current guideline research. Finally, we expect that members will report that the journal club provided the opportunity to facilitate discussions around topics that are less familiar to them. It is anticipated that this collaborative venture will further enhance the importance of grey literature and its usefulness for cancer care clinical practice guidelines.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care
    (2024-05-06) Fernandes, Carolina; Campbell-Scherer, Denise; Lofters, Aisha; Grunfeld, Eva; Aubrey-Bassler, Kris; Cheung, Heidi; Latko, Katherine; Tink, Wendy; Lewanczuk, Richard; Shea-Budgell, Melissa; Heisey, Ruth; Wong, Tracy; Yang, Huiming; Walji, Sakina; Wilson, Margo; Holmes, Elizabeth; Lang-Robertson, Kelly; DeLonghi, Christina; Manca, Donna P.
    Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. Methods A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40–69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. Results We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40–69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. Conclusions Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person’s overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic
    (2023-09-28) Manca, Donna P.; Fernandes, Carolina; Lofters, Aisha; Aubrey-Bassler, Kris; Shea-Budgell, Melissa; Campbell-Scherer, Denise; Sopcak, Nicolette; Meaney, Christopher; Moineddin, Rahim; McBrien, Kerry; Krueger, Paul; Wong, Tracy; Grunfeld, Eva
    Abstract Background Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40–65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. Results Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. Conclusions We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. Trial registration ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients – a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design
    (2018-09-26) Manca, Donna P; Fernandes, Carolina; Grunfeld, Eva; Aubrey-Bassler, Kris; Shea-Budgell, Melissa; Lofters, Aisha; Campbell-Scherer, Denise; Sopcak, Nicolette; O’Brien, Mary A; Meaney, Christopher; Moineddin, Rahim; McBrien, Kerry; Salvalaggio, Ginetta; Krueger, Paul
    Abstract Background There is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake. Methods/design The BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40–65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach. Discussion This project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings. Trial registration ISRCTN21333761 . Registered on December 19, 2016